Casebook: Jack the Ripper - Main
   

Introduction
Victims
Suspects
Witnesses
Ripper Letters
Police Officials
Official Documents
Press Reports
Victorian London
Message Boards
Ripper Media
Authors
Dissertations
Timelines
Games & Diversions
Photo Archive
Ripper Wiki
Casebook Examiner
Ripper Podcast
About the Casebook

Most Recent Posts:
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - by Karl 41 minutes ago.
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - by harry 4 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by harry 5 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - by Abby Normal 5 hours ago.
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - by harry 5 hours ago.

Most Popular Threads:
Elizabeth Stride: For what reason do we include Stride? - (23 posts)
Non-Fiction: the victims werent prostitutes - (19 posts)
Hutchinson, George: Any updates, or opinions on this witness. - (11 posts)
Mary Jane Kelly: Was Mary Kelly a Ripper victim? - (8 posts)
A6 Murders: A6 Rebooted - (6 posts)
Witnesses: Mizen's inquest statement reconstructed - (5 posts)

Wiki Updates:
Robert Sagar
Edit: Chris
May 9, 2015, 12:32 am
Online newspaper archives
Edit: Chris
Nov 26, 2014, 10:25 am
Joseph Lawende
Edit: Chris
Mar 9, 2014, 10:12 am
Miscellaneous research resources
Edit: Chris
Feb 13, 2014, 9:28 am
Charles Cross
Edit: John Bennett
Sep 4, 2013, 8:20 pm

Most Recent Blogs:
Mike Covell: A DECADE IN THE MAKING.
February 19, 2016, 11:12 am.
Chris George: RipperCon in Baltimore, April 8-10, 2016
February 10, 2016, 2:55 pm.
Mike Covell: Hull Prison Visit
October 10, 2015, 8:04 am.
Mike Covell: NEW ADVENTURES IN RESEARCH
August 9, 2015, 3:10 am.
Mike Covell: UPDDATES FOR THE PAST 11 MONTHS
November 14, 2014, 10:02 am.
Mike Covell: Mike’s Book Releases
March 17, 2014, 3:18 am.

Go Back   Casebook Forums > Ripper Discussions > Motive, Method and Madness

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #11  
Old 03-23-2008, 05:47 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,435
Default

Hi Mike,
Quote:
Originally Posted by perrymason View Post
The uterus came out perfect in Hanbury
In actual fact, it seems that Annie Chapman's large intestine had been cut through also (see the Echo, 19th September 1888).
Quote:
and that wasn't operating theater lighting..although dawn was assisting somewhat I suppose.
Which is far more light than the killer had at his disposal in Mitre Square. Not that I think that light levels matter overmuch - one can separate a string of sausages blindfold and in the dark, by feeling for the natural "neck" between the links.
Quote:
And in Kates case, he obtains an organ which is located in her lower back, from her front.
If the victim were lying on her back with most of her guts drawn out over her right breast, "from the front" would be the most logical route to gain access to any abdominal organ one might care to mention.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 03-23-2008, 05:50 PM
Ben Ben is offline
Commisioner
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 6,802
Default

Hi Mike,

Quote:
then he might make a mess in the dark but could probably identify and locate the organ desired with only his hands
Unless, of course, he didn't "desire" any particular organ, and just rummaged around for something interesting, allighting on a kidney in the process. Remember that the "complete" uterus (Chapman) and the excised kidney (Eddowes) was markedly offset by a botched bladder removal and a botched uterus extraction respectively.

Regards,
Ben
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 03-23-2008, 06:01 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 844
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dan Norder View Post
A kidney was taken in this instance and this instance only. It seems odd to assume that the killer set out specifically to get that kidney instead of just pushing his hands in, feeling something promising, and taking it out.
Yup! When you consider her facial mutilation and what happens to Mary Kelly, I think mutilation was his primary goal. Did he specifically "want" the uterus in victims? Meh. It is actually one of the easier ones to find, and as described above, he whacked at the bladder to get his first one. Also given the details reprinted in Sugden, he "rooted" around with his knife in Katherine Eddowes:

Quote:
[Quoting Brown's transcript--Ed.] . . . the liver was stabbed as if by the point of a sharp instrument. Below this was another incision into the liver of about 2 1/2 inches, and below this the left lobe of the liver was slit through by a vertical cut. 2 cuts were shewn by a jagging of the skin on the left side (Sugden, 241).
--J.D.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 03-23-2008, 06:58 PM
perrymason
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Hi all,

Some very interesting comments Doctor X. And I know with Dan, Sam, and Ben arguing that its not apparent that he desired specific organs at all...a point that you also agree with Doctor X, I find myself once again in the minority. One problem I have is with the way you deduced his main goal was actually mutilation, by using the wounds of Mary Kelly to illustrate that. IF Mary was killed by the same killer...fair point. If not, that murder tells us nothing about Jack the Rippers motives or desires.

If the killer known as The Ripper actually only attacked say Polly, Annie and Kate, exactly how does the "mutilation only" characteristic then show itself?

All three women were brought down and killed in similar manner, all three women seem to reveal a "process", which is subdue-cut-throat-mutilate abdomen post mortem, and only the last has facial markings in addition, which could be as a result of collateral damage, or done as purposeful "nicks".

He cut into the abdomens, and setting Polly aside for a minute.... as he didnt get any organs from her, twice he has taken a full or partial uterus. 2 of 3 successful extractions, in that group of 3, were the same organ, and they were taken.

I really dont know why he chose to take Kates kidney, or the other bits he takes from Annie and Kate, but Im less likely to assume that it was just for sport and purely the luck of the draw, than others here I guess.

My best regards all.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 03-23-2008, 07:09 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perrymason View Post
I really dont know why he chose to take Kates kidney, or the other bits he takes from Annie and Kate
To paraphrase George Mallory, perhaps it was just "because they were there".
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 03-23-2008, 07:17 PM
Doctor X Doctor X is offline
Inactive
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 844
Default

perrymason:

Here is a trivia question: What case--in the books--did he lose?

Right, damn is this place addictive.

Anyways, I am not competent to comment on whether or not Mary Kelly was a bona fide Jack victim--I would just be parroting what others have said. I, myself, do not doubt it, but I am always willing to be shown otherwise.

To me, it seems Mary afforded him the opportunity to literally go nuts. All of his other killings he did in public places. With Mary, he could take his time and he basically dismantled her.

However, let me take your point and put Mary aside. Let us pretend she is not a Jack victim--I blame Dickens!! Bloody David Copperfield!

So now you have your three. Well, there is still a progression. With Katherine he goes so far as to slash up her face. With Annie, he does his first real removal. With Polly, he is getting started with his explorations. He also took "bits" with these victims as noted above.

So what, then, is his reason for taking a uterus or Kate's kidney? The problem is we can "read into"--eisegesis--meaning without justification. I can "make up" a reason for the uterus . . . sexual fixation on the belly . . . "seat of woman-hood" . . . blah . . . blah. Or it could simple be a damn easy thing to find! It could be a trophy! Another member in a private communication suggests maybe he ate them!

Jack that is . . . not the poster. . . .

Thus, with the kidney he may have actually wanted one . . . or as Dan Norder suggests above, Jack just may have located it and took it. Small enough to take with the other "bits."

Back to Mary Kelly--here he takes the heart. Why? Why not? Maybe it is different.

Anyways, it is getting late, so I should stop speculating. . . .

--J.D.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 03-23-2008, 07:28 PM
perrymason
 
Posts: n/a
Default

Im sure its quite possibly as you suggest Sam, I dont claim to know differently, but as I was trying to get across, many of the wounds inflicted on Mary Kelly could be construed as acts of someone who was punishing, spiting, mocking or just taking out anger on the victim. Or they could be signs that the Ripper killer was wanting to mutilate more, so he moves indoors to do so.

The same duality applies to the removal and taking of organs, it was either "the everest" that he just stumbled upon, or he went in for specific things.

The 3 victims that had organ removals share the fact that all had the uterus cut free from the body,.. only in the last case, it cannot be considered relevant as an objective, because he removes almost everything abdominal from her...and doesn't take the uterus. The only relevance that might have, is perhaps that the killer who takes excised uteri wasn't in Millers Court that morning...because he showed no attachment to that particular organ. The two, partial and complete, he took before that point quite obviously had some meaning for him...otherwise why take uteri?

I think its important that we dont just disregard the sex of all his attributed victims...it could be as you say Sam, because they were there at the moment in the middle of the night when he goes killing, or he may have wanted female parts, and that why he goes out after midnight...to take them from gullible, weak, starving women..

My best regards.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 03-23-2008, 08:00 PM
Sam Flynn Sam Flynn is online now
Casebook Supporter
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wales
Posts: 10,435
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by perrymason View Post
The two, partial and complete, he took before that point quite obviously had some meaning for him...otherwise why take uteri?
...perhaps because there really is no other organ in the lower abdomen, apart from the urinary bladder, that could be smuggled away with relative ease.
__________________
Kind regards, Sam Flynn

"Suche Nullen" (Nietzsche, Götzendämmerung, 1888)
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 03-23-2008, 08:10 PM
Glenn Lauritz Andersson Glenn Lauritz Andersson is offline
Sergeant
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Helsingborg, Sweden
Posts: 979
Default

Personally, I don't agree with the view that the Ripper happened to take the uteri because they were handy in that area where he ripped them up. The Ripper took a number of dfferent organs and body parts from his victims but in two of the cases (Chapman and Eddowes) the womb was taken apart from other stuff - I see that as an important issue.
Sure, two occasions isn't a very well founded base for any speculation about intent or 'pattern', but I see it as important nevertheless. To me the womb appears to have been the main target and then he just grabbed what he got hold of as far as the rest is concerned.

Of course, this doesn't mean that the Ripper needed to be medically trained in any way or that he possessed a great deal of anatomical knowledge besides what a butcher or slaughterer might possess.

All the best
__________________
The Swedes are the Men that Will not Be Blamed for Nothing

Last edited by Glenn Lauritz Andersson : 03-23-2008 at 08:13 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 03-23-2008, 08:51 PM
paul emmett paul emmett is offline
Detective
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Wisconsin
Posts: 370
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Glenn Lauritz Andersson View Post
Personally, I don't agree with the view that the Ripper happened to take the uteri because they were handy in that area where he ripped them up. The Ripper took a number of dfferent organs and body parts from his victims but in two of the cases (Chapman and Eddowes) the womb was taken apart from other stuff - I see that as an important issue.
Sure, two occasions isn't a very well founded base for any speculation about intent or 'pattern', but I see it as important nevertheless. To me the womb appears to have been the main target and then he just grabbed what he got hold of as far as the rest is concerned.
I,too, see the "selection" of the utrei as important. Indeed, I agree with all Glenn has said here, except the duality between "main target" and "just grabbed." The problem I have with this duality starts earlier in this thread, with the implicit assumption that JTR either focused on mutilation or organ selection. Clearly, Jack was concerned with mutilating, but does that imply that he wasn't concerned with uteri? It seems that, as Glenn and Michael have said, uteri meant something to JTR. Did they mean more than the thrill of the cut? I'm not sure.

But I do go further and say that for wombs it's not just two cases. MJK's uterus was exracted along with just abut everything else, but to me the fact that it ended up underneath, propping up, her head says something. He doesn't take it, but he leaves it in what I would call a privledged position. He now has time to pick and choose and he chooses to leave Kelly's womb under her head--with one breast and both kidneys. So we are back again to the kidneys, which I think are important to JTR, too. As important as the womb? No, I too think the womb was "the main target"--just like one could argue that mutilation was the main goal. I just feel that one goal doesn't preclude others. There could have been a main goal and yet other goals, a main target and yet other targets.

OH, I don't think that JTR had the skill of a surgeon, just the vision of an owl.

Happy Easter.

Last edited by paul emmett : 03-23-2008 at 09:01 PM.
Quick reply to this message Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.